Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!   (92,132 visits to this link)

    2. News

    1. GTA Online

      1. Find Lobbies & Players
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Vehicles
      4. Content Creator
      5. Help & Support
    2. Crews

      1. Events
      2. Recruitment
    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

    2. GTA Next

    3. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA Mods
    5. GTA Chinatown Wars

    6. GTA Vice City Stories

    7. GTA Liberty City Stories

    8. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    9. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    10. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    11. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    12. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

    2. Red Dead Redemption

    3. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. Forum Support

    2. Site Suggestions

Son of Zeus

How would you rate the map of GTA V?

How would you rate the map of V?  

356 members have voted

  1. 1. On a scale of 1-10, how would you rate it?

    • 1 (Absolutely sh*tty)
      13
    • 2 (Awful)
      2
    • 3 (Poor)
      6
    • 4 (Below average)
      17
    • 5 (Average)
      31
    • 6 (Above average)
      24
    • 7 (Good map overall, despite some major flaws)
      105
    • 8 (Very good map with some minor flaws)
      87
    • 9 (An extremely well-crafted map)
      46
    • 10 (Just perfect, best map in the series)
      25


Recommended Posts

ChiroVette

Why would you dig a 1 year old topic like this?

 

Correction: You would have to go back a bit further than my post if you want to get pissy about a thread from a year ago being bumped.

 

Definitely a 10/10, the more I play it. I think I may have initially given it a mere 9/10, but the more I explore, lavish in the details, and get lost in all the awesome scenery (city and rural) the more 10 this map is.

Edited by ChiroVette

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
D T

The worst part is, Rockstar knew the map layout sucked long before launch, but they refused to change it. That's why their own editors tried to conceal the freeway in this trailer.

 

gtav8_by_xbulletz-d6f8z25.gif

Edited by D T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pastry

It's definitely a 7 for me. I was really excited to get away from the concrete jungle vibe in LC when it first released, but these days I just keep on coming back to IV due to the lack of it tbh. Los Santos, while actually larger than IV's LC and Alderney in technicality, felt smaller due to the open design of things. I know real life LA is full of massive open streets and such, but look at San Andreas' version of Los Santos. It was a fairly small map in general, but it felt bigger thanks to the layout and road mapping (draw distance also played a massive role but making V have small draw distance would just be weird). GTA V's LS just seems like it was built with a racing game focus in mind, yet there are barely any street races, and almost none of them make use of downtown's huge open streets. Los Santos also had very weak vegetation compared to real life LA (but that's for another rant).

 

Once you move out of LS, the roads start to get a lot more complex due to the mountainous landscape. Liberty City had a huge grid like map and a bunch of water that made moving to the next island at least a tad bit inconvenient, giving the illusion of size. Los Santos has a bunch of mountains that just seem like bad excuses to make annoying winding roads that drag on your journey. I know that real life LA is actually pretty much surrounded by mountains, but I feel like they could have let creative geography take charge here instead of realism. They could have just left Mount Josiah and Chilliad stay, while trading in the other ones for more exciting, unique small communities. San Andreas had a good bunch of small towns to explore and they really made the countryside a lot more fun (imo).

 

Once you get past the first few layers of mountain, you come across the Grand Senora Desert. In reality, it's not really grand at all. It's a Vice Beach sized stretch of sand textures and fences. They could have at least removed those hills next to the Liqour Ace to make way for more desert land. Real life Slab City has massive open stretches of desert and a few main roads going through it. To the west of it is Raton Canyon, probably the only area I little problems with.

 

The last layer of the map is Paleto Bay and Mount Chilliad. Paleto Bay should've had much, much more forest area than it does. It's not a dark, desolate forest, untouched by man. It looks like a park with big trees and a highway going through it. It's a nice area, sure, but it could have been something bigger than 3 straight lines. Unlike San Andreas, Mount Chilliad doesn't have any proper roads going up it (probably more realistic that way too). Instead it has two tight hiker trails. Most of the time when you go up it, you use aircraft or take one of the trails. One starts out in Paleto Forest and the other in Grapeseed, so you only ever see two sides of the mountain. They could have added more trails that go up it near the Up-N-Atom rocket joint in Paleto or by Stab City, so you get to see more of it. I like the fact that they placed a (letter scrap?) collectible on one of the cooler flat arch areas (no idea what you call them) on the mountain. Sadly, doing 100% is probably one of the only times you get to see such nice areas. Whether that's a good or bad thing, I'll leave for you to decide.

 

In my opinion, they didn't do a very good job of utilizing the whole map. The east side of the map feels very neglected, which is interesting because Mount Gordo and the forest area behind the oil fields (at least in my opinion) were very well built. You spend most of the story and even side missions sitting in Los Santos or going up and down Route 68 like a paraplegic in a rocket wheelchair. Even with all of my rantings about "what could've been" and how the layout sucks donckey dick, it's the small things that really bring it together. The bumps in the road with actual depth, realistic cityscape, unique pit stops like Rebel Radio or the pink dino near the quarry, background sounds, animals, animated oil wells, traffic cars (not counting all the sh*t from latest online updates), "random" events and few copy pasted assets. It's better than previous maps, but it could have been better than it is right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
polaris23

(Very good map with some minor flaws)

 

When I saw this part of the map for the first time,

 

78dJezS.jpg

 

I thought that it is a huge residential neighborhood like Lincoln Heights in L.A., but it is nothing but a dirty roads and some industrial objects. This place sucks.

 

+ Forest sucks.

 

+ Desert is too small.

 

I always wished GTA neighborhoods to be large, like real neighborhoods are, one day. Not those 'standard GTA neighborhoods' consisted of just 3-4 blocks. And finally, we have Vinewood Hills and La Puerta, they're large enough for me. Also big thanks to R* for countryside with small towns, I really love the atmosphere of a small town since GTA SA, this is what I really missed in IV.

 

SRd7Yw8.jpg

Dude I thought the same thing! I still remember sitting on the toilet looking at the paper map while the game installed in the other room, specifically eyeballing the El Burro Heights area imagining it being like the ghetto suburbs I grew up in (I was born and raised in East L.A.) but when I finally drove there, it's just an annoying, hilly mess with a bunch of obstacles. Ugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChiroVette

The worst part is, Rockstar knew the map layout sucked long before launch, but they refused to change it. That's why their own editors tried to conceal the freeway in this trailer.

 

gtav8_by_xbulletz-d6f8z25.gif

 

That's a pretty wild theory you have there. lol That Rockstar "concealed" a freeway in a trailer?

 

I don't get it. Not sure what country you live in, but here in the US, there are many mountains and mountain ranges, in and out of the West Coast, that have highways and main thoroughfares nearby or in plain view of tall mountains. In many cases, these large arteries are the main roads running through, which allow for easy transport into and out of the very rural areas.

 

By the way, I love how you subliminally misrepresent the roads near Chilliad and other mountains in the game, with your use of the word "freeway." Have you been to LA? Have you been to large cities with actual freeways that have upwards of five lanes of traffic in each direction?

 

You know, if you personally don't like the map, no harm, no foul. But to deliberately conflate the roads in that area with a "freeway," which signifies much larger roads, is manipulative at best, in a surreptitious attempt to paint your opinion as fact. Just say you don't like the map or the map layout. Nobody can argue with that.

 

I will say that I absolutely LOVE how you chose to post a stunningly gorgeous picture of amazing scenery in Blaine County to try and make your point that the map layout sucks.

 

lol Nice try, though. :r*:

Edited by ChiroVette

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
polaris23

 

The worst part is, Rockstar knew the map layout sucked long before launch, but they refused to change it. That's why their own editors tried to conceal the freeway in this trailer.

 

gtav8_by_xbulletz-d6f8z25.gif

That's a pretty wild theory you have there. lol That Rockstar "concealed" a freeway in a trailer?

 

I don't get it. Not sure what country you live in, but here in the US, there are many mountains and mountain ranges, in and out of the West Coast, that have highways and main thoroughfares nearby or in plain view of tall mountains. In many cases, these large arteries are the main roads running through, which allow for easy transport into and out of the very rural areas.

 

By the way, I love how you subliminally misrepresent the roads near Chilliad and other mountains in the game, with your use of the word "freeway." Have you been to LA? Have you been to large cities with actual freeways that have upwards of five lanes of traffic in each direction?

 

You know, if you personally don't like the map, no harm, no foul. But to deliberately conflate the roads in that area with a "freeway," which signifies much larger roads, is manipulative at best, in a surreptitious attempt to paint your opinion as fact. Just say you don't like the map or the map layout. Nobody can argue with that.

 

I will say that I absolutely LOVE how you chose to post a stunningly gorgeous picture of amazing scenery in Blaine County to try and make your point that the map layout sucks.

 

lol Nice try, though. :r*:

Yeah I don't agree with him either on the freeway thing. But that image does fool us into believing there is large areas of forests. Anyone know exactly where this is in the game? Kind of looks like the mountains by Fort Zancudo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pink Pineapple

Yeah I don't agree with him either on the freeway thing.

 

 

You should agree with him. The trailer scene was intentionally misleading. The freeway is between the hikers and the mountain in that scene. They just angled the camera so you couldn't see it.

 

0_0.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChiroVette

 

Yeah I don't agree with him either on the freeway thing. But that image does fool us into believing there is large areas of forests. Anyone know exactly where this is in the game? Kind of looks like the mountains by Fort Zancudo

 

 

A few things to consider:

 

1. That is just a screenshot, presumably taken from a trailer? It isn't a lie, it isn't dissembling, it isn't obfuscating. We have NO EARTHLY idea, other than wild-eyed, anti-V-Snore-Fanboy speculation by some people (not saying you) to try and use every, single little nugget of minutia that has been sitting up their asses for coming up on four years now. NOBODY from Rockstar ever said there would be vast forests, at least not that I can recall.

 

2. By the way? All that picture shows is some mountains with scattered trees and campers looking down and out into the scenery. Nothing more, nothing less. That shot is actually in the game, so it isn't some fabrication; it looks beautiful, both in that shot and in the game, and only the most cravenly misrepresentation of the facts at hand can even begin to cast it into aspersion as somehow deceptive or "false advertising." To claim such (and again, I am not saying you are) is absolute folly.

 

3. As someone who has played this game a lot, I think the scene looks just as good the way it is shown AND with the road in view. If the road was some low-res crap, or was aesthetically an eyesore or something, and its inclusion in the scene would make it look worse or not as appealing, then maybe I can see what people are saying, but even that would be a pretty huge stretch. It isn't like the road is cringe-worthy and needs to be hidden or Rockstar wouldn't have sold their billions in revenue. It frankly amazes me that people have to grasp at such straws, in the form of mindless ephemera, when making claims of deception.

 

 

As I said in another post, why not just say "I don't like this or that, personally, because I was really hoping for a forest I could get lost in." Then nobody can challenge your opinion because it is just how the game disappointed you personally, but not couched as some universal, end-all-be-all claim to some gaming empiricism.

Edited by ChiroVette

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Algonquin Assassin

The worst part is, Rockstar knew the map layout sucked long before launch, but they refused to change it. That's why their own editors tried to conceal the freeway in this trailer.

 

gtav8_by_xbulletz-d6f8z25.gif

 

I remember before release thinking that the hikers must've been at the edge of a forest or something. I wouldn't go as far as saying it's false advertising, but it's a pretty good example of how camera angles can be used to exaggerate scale and proximity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
D T

That's a pretty wild theory you have there. lol That Rockstar "concealed" a freeway in a trailer?

 

I don't get it. Not sure what country you live in, but here in the US, there are many mountains and mountain ranges, in and out of the West Coast, that have highways and main thoroughfares nearby or in plain view of tall mountains. In many cases, these large arteries are the main roads running through, which allow for easy transport into and out of the very rural areas.

 

By the way, I love how you subliminally misrepresent the roads near Chilliad and other mountains in the game, with your use of the word "freeway." Have you been to LA? Have you been to large cities with actual freeways that have upwards of five lanes of traffic in each direction?

 

You know, if you personally don't like the map, no harm, no foul. But to deliberately conflate the roads in that area with a "freeway," which signifies much larger roads, is manipulative at best, in a surreptitious attempt to paint your opinion as fact. Just say you don't like the map or the map layout. Nobody can argue with that.

 

I will say that I absolutely LOVE how you chose to post a stunningly gorgeous picture of amazing scenery in Blaine County to try and make your point that the map layout sucks.

 

lol Nice try, though. :r*:

I've never heard the word surreptitious before. And I definitely wasn't trying to pull any jedi mind tricks, not that they'd work on someone as well educated as you. As others have pointed out, it was a deliberate camera trick to make the mountain range appear more vast than it was. No mountain hiker is going to be posing in front of a road. They did the same thing with this scene.

 

maxresdefault.jpg

 

Rockstar increased the fog density to hide the beach, making the city appear much larger.

Edited by D T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Rockstar Gamer 108

GTA V's map really lacks something. Though the city has brought a major change in the history of OW games, still, 75 -/- of it's map is covered by the useless sand. The main Los Santos City feels too small. I was extremely disappointed after seeing V's LS.

GTA San Andreas' s Los Santos felt bigger and better than V's.

 

10★ for Los Santos 1992 and

3☆ for Los Santos 2013.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
-Voron-

i voted for 7. Crater feeling creates illusion that you are surrounded by mountains and you see the edges of the map. Therefore it feels small and you feel "limited". In GTA SA , i never got the feeling that the map is small because of its diversity and overall its not just a potato shaped map. It has different towns and small countryside cities. GTA SA also has missions in those mentioned areas so it gives them story/background/feel to those places which of course makes us remember them very well.

 

IMO in games which has countrysides , city is the main point of interest. Since gta v has only one city and it doesnt even make up significant part of the map, it feels small and boring.

Edited by -Voron-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChiroVette

I've never heard the word surreptitious before. And I definitely wasn't trying to pull any jedi mind tricks, not that they'd work on someone as well educated as you. As others have pointed out, it was a deliberate camera trick to make the mountain range appear more vast than it was. No mountain hiker is going to be posing in front of a road. They did the same thing with this scene.

 

 

 

 

Rockstar increased the fog density to hide the beach, making the city appear much larger.

 

 

The problem here is threefold:

 

One, you and others are presupposing that these innocuous shots that are not showing beaches (in this case) or a road in the other case, are intentionally misleading. As if somehow beaches in a fictitious city representing the real life Los Angeles (which, by the way, is famous for its beaches lol) would be bad for gross sales or cause people to fear losing immersion? And showing roads in rural outlying areas in So Cal, which is famous for traffic jams all around LA and its suburbs, would tank sales? I see absolutely no indication for that line of thinking at all.

 

Two, Los Santos is plenty big, particularly when you add in Blaine County. The map is a really nice size for a GTA game, and I see nothing in the shot you just posted that makes Los Santos look "bigger than it actually is."

 

Three, and this is important, if what you guys are whining about is actually true, then doesn't every single company selling every single product in the history of mankind show it with camera angles and photographic methods to accentuate the positive aspects of what they are selling, and minimize what might be negative? I mean, even if what you are saying is true here, and I am not seeing it from the pictures in this thread so far, then why is that somehow magically a strike against the map in this game?

 

Could it be that some people in this forum are so against this game that they have to try and include even the most ephemeral minutia in their sophistry to try and convince their fellow GTA'ers that this game (or in this case, the map) sucks balls?

 

Just something to think about. ;)

Edited by ChiroVette

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hot Pursuit

Like I said in my signature, GTA V is a masterpiece with everything is amazing, including the map.

 

I rate it 10000000/10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yinepi

There's just something off about this map. The shape of it, and the way the mountains form. It all looks so fake and unrealistic. One person on here once said that the map is reminiscent of the shape of Homer Simpson's forehead. I'd completely agree.

 

 

The road layout of this map makes little sense from a city-planning perspective. For example, to get to the docks you have to get off the freeway and travel through that one road with the train underneath. This only spells bad idea because now big traffic has to traverse the city streets causing what would be traffic congestion in real-life. Speaking of freeway, there isn't enough exits and entrance ramps in important strategic locations. The freeway swoops around the minuscule "downtown" area of four buildings but doesn't cover the east section of the city hardly at all - the part of the city that is actually the most dense in terms of buildings and population.

 

The neighborhoods are too small with drastic stylistic changes throughout which in turn makes you feel as if you're not in a major city of itself, but rather exploring a bunch of small villages connected by a major freeway network. One example of bad layout of these neighborhoods is the neighborhood Franklin lives in at the start of the game. Here we have small roads connected to a major avenue, which in itself shares space with the only Metro network of the city. Now you have tramcars trying to traverse through the city and getting stuck because of all of the traffic congestion caused by the car traffic attempting to use a major road way. Not to mention if a person wants to ride the metro network they must almost commit suicide crossing a major roadway trying to get to the station platform because the city seemingly lacks overhead pedestrian bridges with the exception of the one near the pier.

 

Foliage, props, details. Even though the map has some nice details, many of them are put into things that simply don't matter, such as the underwater. The average player won't go underwater very often and will spend most of their time on land. With this in mind, it really makes me wonder why Rockstar spent time designing the underwater space when they could have used that time to extend the above ground map, thus making the city of LS bigger.

 

Another thing about props and foliage is that they are inconsistent for the areas they're suppose to represent. The mountains have almost no trees, while the desert is quite literally a forest of Joshua trees and cacti.

 

 

5/10.

Edited by Yinepi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChiroVette

Like I said in my signature, GTA V is a masterpiece with everything is amazing, including the map.

 

I rate it 10000000/10

 

Yeah, definitely the BEST map in GTA's history, hands down. Every time I play the game, I find something new and cool.

 

Also, exploring from the air is really intoxicating in this game!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hot Pursuit

 

Like I said in my signature, GTA V is a masterpiece with everything is amazing, including the map.

I rate it 10000000/10

 

Yeah, definitely the BEST map in GTA's history, hands down. Every time I play the game, I find something new and cool.

 

Also, exploring from the air is really intoxicating in this game!

Indeed, I also found a lot of new thing everyday. The layout itself are also realistic too, looking to Los Santos from Vinewood Hills really feels like looking to Los Angeles, R* done excellent job at making this well-craften, beautiful masterpiece type of map

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gokuzbu

I've played V for hours trying to feel the fun of exploration I got in SA/IV, but nope. I can't really say what it is, I'll just vote poor and leave it at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChiroVette

 

!Indeed, I also found a lot of new thing everyday. The layout itself are also realistic too, looking to Los Santos from Vinewood Hills really feels like looking to Los Angeles, R* done excellent job at making this well-craften, beautiful masterpiece type of map

 

I think that what separates this map from other sandbox games, including even awesome maps like San Andreas, is the attention to detail. I have walked through the ghetto (carefully, of course lol) and I am constantly blown away by how beautifully detailed it is, in all of its broken down, urban decay. Then I go through Vinewood and see all the glamour and glitz of Hollywood, and work my way through the beaches, and as someone who has been to California many times and loves the whole LA area and vibe, I am struck by how authentic it all feels.

 

I also drove cross country twice in my life. I live in NY City, and each time I went cross country, I did it in trips I stretched to several months. And the thing that I find amazing about V's map is that while in the LA area many times, I have driven through all the surrounding deserts and the suburban areas, and V really captures all of that so well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Algonquin Assassin

I'd like to revise my original vote of 7 and bump it up to 9. It really is a beautiful and gorgeous map all things considered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
woggleman

I'd like to revise my original vote of 7 and bump it up to 9. It really is a beautiful and gorgeous map all things considered.

I think V is slowly winning you over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChiroVette

 

I'd like to revise my original vote of 7 and bump it up to 9. It really is a beautiful and gorgeous map all things considered.

I think V is slowly winning you over.

I think certain parts of it are. Clearly, his taste lean more toward the more serious storyline of IV, and I think he may also prefer the more tighter knit and reslistic gameplay over V as well.

Edited by ChiroVette

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Algonquin Assassin

 

 

I'd like to revise my original vote of 7 and bump it up to 9. It really is a beautiful and gorgeous map all things considered.

I think V is slowly winning you over.

I think certain parts of it are. Clearly, his taste lean more toward the more serious storyline of IV, and I think he may also prefer the more tighter knit and reslistic gameplay over V as well.

 

 

This would be correct my good man. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Queen Elizabeth II

The map in Grand Theft Auto V is one of the things that I really hate.

 

I don't really like West Coast of The United States, I also don't like the architecture of the cities on West Coast. I think that Los Angeles is one of the most bland cities in The US. California is not appealing to me at all. I just don't like the setting.

 

That might be the reason why I hate the V's map - but it is not the only one. If the map was done correctly, I wouldn't care - I think that I would like it - I liked San Andreas that was presented in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. It was really fine for me. I enjoyed driving around it, but I hate San Andreas in V.

 

The City really does feel small. It looks small on the map and feel small when you drive around it. It is also not very good looking - when you look at it from a distance then yes, it is impressive, but it is not as detailed as Liberty City from IV and it doesn't have any atmosphere and 'feel' to the place. Downtown feels really bland and I always avoid it, if I can - of course. Vinewood area is really a spot on and it does feel like it is real Hollywood - but sadly, for me, it is not an advantage, because real Hollywood is just as awful to navigate in. East Los Santos is the only district which looks cool - I wouldn't want to live there and I hate to stay there, but it really feels 'bad' - just like it should. I hate The Docks and Los Santos Airport area - but it's not Rockstar's fault - I just don't like such areas, but there is no exception for the Airport - it is just too big! It is as big as half of the city! It is not good. I like the Venice Beach. It's the only area in Los Santos in which I would like to live in.

 

The Countryside also feel small. After one playthrough I already know everything about it. I didn't even have to carefully look around - it is just too small and there is too many mountains! Why is there so many of them? I would prefer to have bigger desert with basically nothing in it than these. Speaking about Desert - it is not only too little, but it also feels very trivial. It is not that bad, though. Another thing is Forest - well... in my opinion it should have been much, much bigger. There is no real forest, actually - just trees which were condensed in a small area with a big road in the middle of it. Sad. It is nothing like Back 'o Beyond from GTA: San Andreas. The small towns are actually not that bad - I like the design of Grapeseed and Sandy Shores. They really look like rural american towns - at least from what I know. Still, I think that San Andreas did a better job - towns in SA are great, these are just average. I think that Paleto Bay is the best town in V. It is a really cool looking settlement. What I don't like is that all these cities are pointless. But that's okay, they are a good decoration.

Overall, the worst thing that could happen to this map is the layout. It looks awful. Who even thought that this would be a good thing to make the map look like an irregular circle? Also the Highway System is a joke.

 

Here's my old map which is based on the V's map - I think that it looks slightly better.

 

 

LBdYM2m.png

 

 

All in all, I rate the Grand Theft Auto V's map 2/10.

AWFUL.

 

Still, not as bad as Vice City.

 

 

It's just my opinion, so please don't get triggered.

Edited by Queen Elizabeth II

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Laqueesha

It's high quality, but one thing I didn't get from it is the size of scale. L.A. (which L.S. is based on) is the second biggest city in the U.S. but in the game it doesn't feel that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
woggleman

 

 

I'd like to revise my original vote of 7 and bump it up to 9. It really is a beautiful and gorgeous map all things considered.

I think V is slowly winning you over.

I think certain parts of it are. Clearly, his taste lean more toward the more serious storyline of IV, and I think he may also prefer the more tighter knit and reslistic gameplay over V as well.

 

For sure but it's good to see he is starting to give credit where it is due.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
R3D-RAB1T

Its a pretty good map since its made on last gen it was already pushing the limits but other than small things here and there its pretty good

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GTAUrbanCamping

I gave it a solid 7. It has really good parts. and really, they couldve done more. Im partial to the sandy shores and prison area. although pretty small. I do enjoy the wildnerness/ raton canyon area as well. However...easily couldve have done more to all the empty spaces.

 

the city is pretty good and have no real complaints. I do dislike the highway system, but I dont use it much. I love the industrial area as well.

 

I like the various landmarks such as sawmill. I think they couldve added other type landmarks throhghout so it wasnt so much open space.

 

all in all I enjoy it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Algonquin Assassin

 

 

 

I'd like to revise my original vote of 7 and bump it up to 9. It really is a beautiful and gorgeous map all things considered.

 

I think V is slowly winning you over.
I think certain parts of it are. Clearly, his taste lean more toward the more serious storyline of IV, and I think he may also prefer the more tighter knit and reslistic gameplay over V as well.

 

For sure but it's good to see he is starting to give credit where it is due.

 

To be fair it's not like I've just started seeing its good points out of the blue. I have many positive posts in this forum from the last three years or so. Most of my disappointments/criticisms get levelled at the story, characters, physics, side missions etc, but as time has passed I just take the game for what it is rather than what it isn't to me.

 

Moaning about these things made me get sick of myself listening to myself complain about them lol.

 

Even though I have gripes with the map I've always maintained it's impressive on a technical level with some of the best scenery in an open world game.

 

I'll never love GTA V like I love GTA IV, but it's still a welcomed game in the genre.:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Am Shaegar

9

 

The best map to come out from the HD era. Apart from a few minor niggles like, lack of interiors, and interactions, everything about the map is top-notch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.